Community

A long standing unimplemented feature in D are the array operations. I want
to get 1.0 out, but Norbert Nemec has convinced me that the array operations
feature needs to be rethought out. I want to make it work right so it will
provide better performance opportunity than FORTRAN arrays do, and Norbert
has proposed some intriguing features it might have that could put it well
ahead of FORTRAN and C++.
So, I'm going to drop the array ops for 1.0, and pick up the torch again
after it's out.

There won't be any major changes in D 1.0 except bug-fixes, will there?
I'm also curious about the release date of 1.0 (if scheduled.)
Walter wrote:
> A long standing unimplemented feature in D are the array operations. I want
> to get 1.0 out, but Norbert Nemec has convinced me that the array operations
> feature needs to be rethought out. I want to make it work right so it will
> provide better performance opportunity than FORTRAN arrays do, and Norbert
> has proposed some intriguing features it might have that could put it well
> ahead of FORTRAN and C++.
>
> So, I'm going to drop the array ops for 1.0, and pick up the torch again
> after it's out.
>
>

Wow! I assumed there were several outstanding important issues,
including at least the GC/dynamic libs one, to be resolve first.
I understand a release point must come at some arbitrarily chosen point,
but just not expected it so soon.
"Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:cu3tnh$2e8$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>A long standing unimplemented feature in D are the array operations. I
>want
> to get 1.0 out, but Norbert Nemec has convinced me that the array
> operations
> feature needs to be rethought out. I want to make it work right so it
> will
> provide better performance opportunity than FORTRAN arrays do, and
> Norbert
> has proposed some intriguing features it might have that could put it
> well
> ahead of FORTRAN and C++.
>
> So, I'm going to drop the array ops for 1.0, and pick up the torch
> again
> after it's out.
>
>

Isn't the gc DLL issue resolved? (I know the shared library on linux isn't.)
And yes, 1.0 will probably just likely be an arbitrary stake in the ground
at this point.
"Matthew" <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message
news:cu44ch$71j$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Wow! I assumed there were several outstanding important issues,
> including at least the GC/dynamic libs one, to be resolve first.
>
> I understand a release point must come at some arbitrarily chosen point,
> but just not expected it so soon.

"Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:cu4550$7km$2@digitaldaemon.com...
> Isn't the gc DLL issue resolved? (I know the shared library on linux
> isn't.)
Last I heard you'd had an idea, and were going away to mull on it. We
lap-witted plebians are eagerly awaiting your prognostications.
Or have I missed something?
> And yes, 1.0 will probably just likely be an arbitrary stake in the
> ground
> at this point.

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 17:44:15 -0800, Walter wrote:
> A long standing unimplemented feature in D are the array operations. I want
> to get 1.0 out, but Norbert Nemec has convinced me that the array operations
> feature needs to be rethought out. I want to make it work right so it will
> provide better performance opportunity than FORTRAN arrays do, and Norbert
> has proposed some intriguing features it might have that could put it well
> ahead of FORTRAN and C++.
>
> So, I'm going to drop the array ops for 1.0, and pick up the torch again
> after it's out.
Sounds like a good approach.
In the meantime, array operations can be written out in long hand ;-)
--
Derek
Melbourne, Australia

"Matthew" <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message
news:cu45a1$7qn$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message
> news:cu4550$7km$2@digitaldaemon.com...
> > Isn't the gc DLL issue resolved? (I know the shared library on linux
> > isn't.)
>
> Last I heard you'd had an idea, and were going away to mull on it. We
> lap-witted plebians are eagerly awaiting your prognostications.
>
> Or have I missed something?
The 0.112 release added support for sharing a single gc instance among
multiple DLLs. If there was something else I promised, I can't remember what
it was <g>.

"Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:cu47lk$9bb$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Matthew" <admin@stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message
> news:cu45a1$7qn$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>
>> "Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message
>> news:cu4550$7km$2@digitaldaemon.com...
>> > Isn't the gc DLL issue resolved? (I know the shared library on
>> > linux
>> > isn't.)
>>
>> Last I heard you'd had an idea, and were going away to mull on it. We
>> lap-witted plebians are eagerly awaiting your prognostications.
>>
>> Or have I missed something?
>
> The 0.112 release added support for sharing a single gc instance among
> multiple DLLs. If there was something else I promised, I can't
> remember what
> it was <g>.
Gotcha

Walter wrote:
> A long standing unimplemented feature in D are the array operations.
> I want to get 1.0 out, but Norbert Nemec has convinced me that the
> array operations feature needs to be rethought out.
Rewriting the spec so that it makes more sense seems straightforward,
and with the spec I had in mind (and imagined was what you really meant
in the first place), I'd've thought it a matter of just a handful of
lines of code.
> I want to make it work right so it will provide better performance
> opportunity than FORTRAN arrays do,
Indeed, optimising the performance in the general case would take a bit
of work. But doesn't the second paragraph of
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/faq.html#q7_3
apply here too?
> and Norbert has proposed some intriguing features it might have that
> could put it well ahead of FORTRAN and C++.
>
> So, I'm going to drop the array ops for 1.0, and pick up the torch
> again after it's out.
In that case, I look forward to seeing the spec updated to reflect this....
Stewart.
--
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox. Please keep replies on
the 'group where everyone may benefit.

Walter wrote:
> A long standing unimplemented feature in D are the array operations. I
> want to get 1.0 out, but Norbert Nemec has convinced me that the array
> operations feature needs to be rethought out. I want to make it work right
> so it will provide better performance opportunity than FORTRAN arrays do,
> and Norbert has proposed some intriguing features it might have that could
> put it well ahead of FORTRAN and C++.
>
> So, I'm going to drop the array ops for 1.0, and pick up the torch again
> after it's out.
Thanks a lot. Now I just hope that I will manage to write down my ideas
sometimes soon, so the future of arrays after 1.0 might become a bit
clearer.